(03-10-2013 09:29 AM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 09:19 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  If we hadn't cut gov't jobs the UE rate would be 7.2%. If we had added jobs like in the Reagan and Bush administration, it would be well into 6%.

We would pay them with IOUs?

So they don't spend money at private businesses who would then hire to keep up with demand thus increasing tax revenue.

(03-10-2013 09:29 AM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 09:19 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  If we hadn't cut gov't jobs the UE rate would be 7.2%. If we had added jobs like in the Reagan and Bush administration, it would be well into 6%.

We would pay them with IOUs?

Raise taxes. They are pretty low right now.

(03-10-2013 10:05 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 09:29 AM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 09:19 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  If we hadn't cut gov't jobs the UE rate would be 7.2%. If we had added jobs like in the Reagan and Bush administration, it would be well into 6%.

We would pay them with IOUs?

So they don't spend money at private businesses who would then hire to keep up with demand thus increasing tax revenue.

So, that's your ideal role of govt.? To give half the people a job controlling the other half, paying this other half to service them.

(03-10-2013 11:40 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 09:29 AM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 09:19 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  If we hadn't cut gov't jobs the UE rate would be 7.2%. If we had added jobs like in the Reagan and Bush administration, it would be well into 6%.

We would pay them with IOUs?

Raise taxes. They are pretty low right now.

Yes, we need more money taken out of the private sector.

(03-10-2013 11:43 AM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 11:40 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 09:29 AM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 09:19 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  If we hadn't cut gov't jobs the UE rate would be 7.2%. If we had added jobs like in the Reagan and Bush administration, it would be well into 6%.

We would pay them with IOUs?

Raise taxes. They are pretty low right now.

Yes, we need more money taken out of the private sector.

The private sector is doing great. Haven't you seem the news? Corporate profits at an all time high, the richest 20% of Americans are making billions, income and wealth gap is increasing to levels that we've never seen before. Time for redistribution.

But how dare I write that.

(03-10-2013 11:42 AM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 10:05 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 09:29 AM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 09:19 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  If we hadn't cut gov't jobs the UE rate would be 7.2%. If we had added jobs like in the Reagan and Bush administration, it would be well into 6%.

We would pay them with IOUs?

So they don't spend money at private businesses who would then hire to keep up with demand thus increasing tax revenue.

So, that's your ideal role of govt.? To give half the people a job controlling the other half, paying this other half to service them.

Never said it was but when you have high unemployment and few jobs available, it is better to do that then cut more people.

(03-10-2013 11:42 AM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 10:05 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 09:29 AM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 09:19 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  If we hadn't cut gov't jobs the UE rate would be 7.2%. If we had added jobs like in the Reagan and Bush administration, it would be well into 6%.

We would pay them with IOUs?

So they don't spend money at private businesses who would then hire to keep up with demand thus increasing tax revenue.

So, that's your ideal role of govt.? To give half the people a job controlling the other half, paying this other half to service them.

Not "giving" people anything. They want to work so put them to work. Plenty of $hit needs to get done around here and corporate America isn't going to do it.

(03-10-2013 11:59 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 11:42 AM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 10:05 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 09:29 AM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 09:19 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  If we hadn't cut gov't jobs the UE rate would be 7.2%. If we had added jobs like in the Reagan and Bush administration, it would be well into 6%.

We would pay them with IOUs?

So they don't spend money at private businesses who would then hire to keep up with demand thus increasing tax revenue.

So, that's your ideal role of govt.? To give half the people a job controlling the other half, paying this other half to service them.

Not "giving" people anything. They want to work so put them to work. Plenty of $hit needs to get done around here and corporate America isn't going to do it.

Honestly, I could swallow more in taxes if those in government would REQUIRE anyone on government assistance that is able bodied to actually do some work. Want some government "benefits" - pick up some trash on the highway, there's plenty of litter.

No - SS and Medicare wouldn't be a part of this.........most folks getting this already paid into the system..........

I just can't stomach paying more taxes so more folks can sit on their ass and get something for breathing.

(03-10-2013 11:57 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  The private sector is doing great. Haven't you seem the news? Corporate profits at an all time high, the richest 20% of Americans are making billions, income and wealth gap is increasing to levels that we've never seen before. Time for redistribution.

But how dare I write that.

Or, just gtfo of private business, including aiding these 20% you cite. Give everyone the same access to the market, and see the income gap dwindle.

(03-10-2013 01:37 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 11:57 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  The private sector is doing great. Haven't you seem the news? Corporate profits at an all time high, the richest 20% of Americans are making billions, income and wealth gap is increasing to levels that we've never seen before. Time for redistribution.

But how dare I write that.

Or, just gtfo of private business, including aiding these 20% you cite. Give everyone the same access to the market, and see the income gap dwindle.

You guys and your fantasy world crack me up.

(03-10-2013 11:57 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 11:43 AM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 11:40 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 09:29 AM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 09:19 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  If we hadn't cut gov't jobs the UE rate would be 7.2%. If we had added jobs like in the Reagan and Bush administration, it would be well into 6%.

We would pay them with IOUs?

Raise taxes. They are pretty low right now.

Yes, we need more money taken out of the private sector.

The private sector is doing great. Haven't you seem the news? Corporate profits at an all time high, the richest 20% of Americans are making billions, income and wealth gap is increasing to levels that we've never seen before. Time for redistribution.
But how dare I write that.

Actually, taxes in total are pretty low by world standards, but taxes on corporations and high incomes aren't. The top marginal rate for corporations is highest in the world, and the top rate for individuals is in the top third of OECD countries. The ratio of taxes paid to income is higher for top incomes in the US than in any other country, per OECD. That is even more remarkable because the total tax bite is so low. Who is skating out on paying their "fair share," at least by world standards, are the poor and middle classes. Of course, in those other countries the welfare safety net is broader and the benefits don't phase out as much with income, so in return for paying more the poor and middle class get more in return (as do the "rich," FWIW).

OK, here the leftists will post something about average or effective taxes. Yeah, they're not out of line by world standards. But that's because corporations and wealthy individuals take advantage of tax shelters. One of the biggest is moving investments and profits overseas, to be taxed at lower rates there than here. Check out any public company 10-K at the SEC EDGAR database, look at the income tax footnote to their financial statements, and note how much they're saving by having profits moved offshore and taxed at lower foreign rates. And individuals are doing the same thing, there just is no place those data are reported in the public domain. Now those actions inevitably move jobs out of the US overseas. So who gets hurt most by having higher tax rates for corporations and high incomes? Not the corporations and high-income individuals, but the poor and middle class whose jobs are going overseas.

If you disagree, why not start by explaining why it is that both the Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin groups concluded that the best way to increase tax revenues was to LOWER the top marginal rate for both corporations and individuals?

The problem is that we have two sides, each so wedded to its own extremist talking points that nobody looks at what is actually happening.

I still don't know what part of the U.S. Constitution mandates redistribution of income.

(03-10-2013 03:02 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I still don't know what part of the U.S. Constitution mandates redistribution of income.

Obviously you didn't get the Obama Bill of Rights memo.

(03-08-2013 12:50 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  But I bet all you Obama haters will say he did nothing to help this. But I know if the stock market was crashing and unemployment rates were rising, it would be all his fault and you guys would blame him instantly.
Unemployment rate falls to lowest level since 2008
http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/08/investin...?iid=HP_LN

Quote:The Dow Jones industrial average has now hit a new all-time high for the fourth straight day.

In real dollars, adjusted for inflation, the Dow is nowhere near an all-time high. And the reasons why it is as high as it is are 1) the dollars being pumped in by Bernanke, and 2) the profits that listed companies are making overseas so they can pay lower taxes on them. I'm not sure any of that is good for the economy.

The 236,000 new jobs is good news--if it is sustained. The "official" unemployment rate is pretty meaningless at this point. This "recovery" is way, way behind any other, including Shrub's.

Bottom line, we're engaging in unsustainable fiscal policies to achieve at best meager growth. That is not a good thing.

(03-10-2013 03:02 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I still don't know what part of the U.S. Constitution mandates redistribution of income.

For the good of the people capitalism must be checked, otherwise you end up with lead in your milk and rat feces in your burgers. Very similar to the salary cap in professional sports.

(03-10-2013 04:53 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 03:02 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I still don't know what part of the U.S. Constitution mandates redistribution of income.

For the good of the people capitalism must be checked, otherwise you end up with lead in your milk and rat feces in your burgers. Very similar to the salary cap in professional sports.

Total BS.

What part of redistribution of wealth prohibits rat feces in burgers?

This is the part of the left mantra that I find repulsive. Somehow we are supposed to believe that the private sector will always screw people, but the government regulators are altruistic saints who have only everyone's best interests at heart. Total BS.

I don't know how anyone can be excited right now. What exactly is the US producing? I don't see "Made in America" on my store shelves. Aight, Cabelas, Walmart, and Target hired fresh employees whoopty doo.

(03-10-2013 05:53 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I don't know how anyone can be excited right now. What exactly is the US producing? I don't see "Made in America" on my store shelves. Aight, Cabelas, Walmart, and Target hired fresh employees whoopty doo.

This is the problem. We've become a retail/service economy, and retail/service economies don't include the jobs necessary to support a middle class. And we can't "redistribute" our way to a solution.

Value-added activity will continue to move overseas. Wealth will become increasingly concentrated in the few individuals and corporations who can move their assets overseas. The middle class will continue to fade away. And the actions that Obama has proposed--all of them--will only make these trends worse.

(03-10-2013 05:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 04:53 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 03:02 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I still don't know what part of the U.S. Constitution mandates redistribution of income.

For the good of the people capitalism must be checked, otherwise you end up with lead in your milk and rat feces in your burgers. Very similar to the salary cap in professional sports.

Total BS.

What part of redistribution of wealth prohibits rat feces in burgers?

This is the part of the left mantra that I find repulsive. Somehow we are supposed to believe that the private sector will always screw people, but the government regulators are altruistic saints who have only everyone's best interests at heart. Total BS.

The private sectors only job is to make money for its investors regardless of ethics. So if that means rat feces in burgers then so be it. When they make most of the money that is to be made, they pay the politicians to change the rules in order to favor them. The richer get richer the politicians make laws so that it continues. The average hard working guy doesn't have a chance, because the deck is so stacked against them.

Imagine if the NFL changed their rules so that the winner of the Super Bowl each year got to create the rules. Baltimore would change the draft order, the way free agency works, and the way the schedule works. Teams like Kansaa City, Jacksonville, St. Louis would fall further and further behind to a point where they could never catch up. This is what is happening in America.

(03-10-2013 09:32 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 09:29 AM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(03-10-2013 09:19 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  If we hadn't cut gov't jobs the UE rate would be 7.2%. If we had added jobs like in the Reagan and Bush administration, it would be well into 6%.

We would pay them with IOUs?

how dare you not look at such numbers in a vacuum... Of course we could hire millions more government workers.... Fire up the printing presses!

How dare I believe that Americans should have upward and downward economic mobility based on work.